Veridicta

Why Veridicta

You cannot ask the model that invented a citation to verify it.

The two obvious alternatives both fall short. A language model has no ground truth to check against. An AI-detector answers a different question entirely. Veridicta checks the one thing that actually matters: do the sources exist, and do the quotes hold up.

Side by side

The alternatives, compared honestly.

Checks each citation against real databases
Tell an AI to verify it
No. It re-reads with the same model that may have written it.
AI-detectors
No. They score writing style, not sources.
Veridicta
Yes. Crossref, OpenAlex and arXiv.
Has ground truth to check against
Tell an AI to verify it
None. It generates plausible-sounding text.
AI-detectors
A statistical model, not a source.
Veridicta
A retrievable source behind every verdict.
Catches a citation that does not exist
Tell an AI to verify it
Unreliable. It can confirm a fake.
AI-detectors
Not what they do.
Veridicta
Yes. Names what resolved and what did not.
Verifies a quote is real and verbatim
Tell an AI to verify it
No. It can hallucinate the match.
AI-detectors
No.
Veridicta
Yes, with a side-by-side diff.
Never flags honest work as AI-written
Tell an AI to verify it
Does not judge authorship.
AI-detectors
Flags it, and is often wrong.
Veridicta
Does not judge authorship.
Produces shareable proof for a client or court
Tell an AI to verify it
Nothing to hand over.
AI-detectors
A probability score.
Veridicta
A tamper-evident certificate and link.
Shows its work with auditable evidence
Tell an AI to verify it
No.
AI-detectors
No. A black-box score.
Veridicta
Yes. Evidence on every citation.
Catches problems before you publish
Tell an AI to verify it
Only if you happen to re-check.
AI-detectors
Flags style, not facts.
Veridicta
Yes. Pre-publication, by design.

Why asking an AI to verify it fails

The model that drafted your document has no ground truth. It produces text that is statistically plausible, which is exactly how fabricated citations get written in the first place. Asking the same kind of model to check them invites the same failure twice.

Worse, a model will often confirm a citation that does not exist, complete with a confident summary of a paper nobody ever wrote. It is not looking anything up. It is predicting what a verification would sound like.

Why AI-detectors fail

AI-detectors guess whether text was machine-written. The approach is probabilistic and has been shown to be unreliable, with documented false positives against human authors, non-native English writers and ordinary edited prose.

Even when a detector is right, it answers the wrong question. Whether a passage reads as AI-written tells you nothing about whether the sources under it are real. A perfectly human-written report can still cite a paper that does not exist.

Why Veridicta is different

Veridicta does not judge authorship and does not guess. It resolves each citation against real databases, checks quotes word for word, and attaches retrievable evidence to every verdict. Either a DOI resolves or it does not.

The result is something you can defend: a tamper-evident certificate that names what was checked, what was found, and where it looked. Evidence for human review, with the reviewer always in the loop.

Check the sources, not the style.

Run the demo and watch Veridicta catch a citation that does not exist.